Greener War. Fighting the ecological bad conscience

[Skybird]

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

I don't get the opposition to this.

Are you surprised?
It doesn't make sense does it.

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

The clouds part......
Interesting, so as well as complaining strongly about the metals in munitions and saying governments must act to stop it and clear up the mess for the sake of the little children you now object to people acting over metals in munitions.
Is that Skybird changing his tune or is it just another of his sad self contradictory personal issues?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

Well, there isn't much we can do about the stupid decisions of our politicians, but why oppose a little step in the right direction if it doesn't bust up the finances or combat capabilities?
The lead issue is one they can solve easily and I rather see small steps than no steps at all because you can wait forever before our politicians become wise and remedy the points on the top of your post.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

What would interest me is what effect on heat build up do non lead rounds cause? If they increase heating this is not so good if they leave less residue in side the barrel that would lower the heat build up of course you still have the powder that lines the barrel after each round which also gets in the grooves and causes heat build up and one substance might cause more friction than another.

Thanks for your extensive answer!
regarding steel vs lead: steel does have a little higher thermal conductivity, so the bullet could be a little hotter - people who were shot do remember a hot impact, if they remember the temp at all.
However the termal conductivity of brass is significantly higher (about 4 times than lead) - I bet left-handed shooters know what I mean
The question is also if a steel bullet needs more powder to propel it, so this could also lead to more powder residue and a hotter barrell.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

You're spot on with your first paragraph.

However I find the question of the ecological impact of war a very interesting one, not only since yesterday. Being interested in WW2 and growing up in a time where an oil spill was common news, I asked myself the question about the impact of the sunken tankers quite early. (The answer is the ships back then were significantly smaller than modern oil tankers, often carried lighter oil than and were mostly way more offshore)
Then there were the reports about the impact of Agent Orange in the Vietnam war, a heritage from which people from both sides suffer till today.
I think the 91 Gulf War brought the devastating ecological effects of war back into our collective minds - the Exxon Valdez was a joke compared to the burning fields in Kuwait and the largest oil spill in history in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention topics like Urane depleted ammo or the Gulf War smptome.

So yes, measurements to reduce the ecological consequences are good - though I must admit that on the first read the biodegradable landmines the article mentions sound just as insane as something like organic poison gas. People who live in areas with extensive mine problems would certainly jump for joy if those things would just resolve in the earth.

[Catfish]

I would not be so concerned about lead, when US jets [edit: other countries like Russia use them, too] fired tons of intoxicating "depleted" (lol) uranium into the landscape